Comparison Overview

Acosta

VS

Albertsons Companies

Acosta

6600 Corporate Center Parkway, Jacksonville, FL, 32216, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Acosta brings simplicity to retail sales. We act as a catalyst to boldly connect brands, retailers and consumers, fueling growth and building long-term value throughout North America and Europe. We are deeply embedded in every corner of the retail industry, strengthening the local, regional and national relationships between brands and retailers.​ Our team of experts uses deep industry insight, cutting-edge analytics and integrated partnerships to help our clients move ahead with confidence.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 12,991
Subsidiaries: 26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Albertsons Companies

250 E Parkcenter BLVD, Boise, Idaho, US, 83706
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Albertsons Companies is one of the largest food and drug retailers in the United States, with over 2,200 stores in 34 states and the District of Columbia. Our well-known banners include Albertsons, Safeway, Vons, Jewel-Osco, Shaw's, Acme, Tom Thumb, Randalls, United Supermarkets, Pavilions, Star Market, Haggen, Carrs, Kings Food Markets, and Balducci's Food Lovers Market. We support our stores with 22 distribution centers and 19 manufacturing plants. Our 285,000 associates have a passion for great service and building lasting relationships with our customers. Through a companywide focus on innovation, we are continually enhancing our digital and product offerings, making it easy for customers to get what they need, wherever they are. Learn more about our Social Media Standards and Guidelines: https://www.albertsonscompanies.com/policies-and-disclosures/social-media-standards-and-guidelines/default.aspx

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 110,249
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/acosta.jpeg
Acosta
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/albertsons.jpeg
Albertsons Companies
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Acosta
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Albertsons Companies
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Albertsons Companies in 2025.

Incident History — Acosta (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Acosta cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Albertsons Companies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Albertsons Companies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/acosta.jpeg
Acosta
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/albertsons.jpeg
Albertsons Companies
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Credential Theft (Fraudulent Website)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2014
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Criminal (Potential Theft of Payment Card Data)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Acosta company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Albertsons Companies company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Albertsons Companies company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Acosta company.

In the current year, Albertsons Companies company and Acosta company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Albertsons Companies company nor Acosta company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Albertsons Companies company and Acosta company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Albertsons Companies company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Acosta company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Acosta company nor Albertsons Companies company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Acosta nor Albertsons Companies holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Acosta company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Albertsons Companies company.

Albertsons Companies company employs more people globally than Acosta company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither Acosta nor Albertsons Companies holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Acosta nor Albertsons Companies holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Acosta nor Albertsons Companies holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Acosta nor Albertsons Companies holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Acosta nor Albertsons Companies holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Acosta nor Albertsons Companies holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H